THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THIS BLOG IS TO SHARE WITH THE READER ISSUES OF HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL SIGNIFICANCE FROM A PROGRESSIVE PERSPECTIVE.
ORDER OF MOST READERS OF THIS BLOG: USA, RUSSIA, FRANCE, UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY, UKRAINE,CANADA, INDIA,and CHINA.

Monday, 27 July 2015

There is an underlying assumption that the more political parties a country
has the more democracy it has, and that the more democracy it has the more
social justice and egalitarianism it enjoys. If this were indeed the case, then
a number of countries around the world with many political parties, including
Italy and Greece, Israel and India, Philippines and Romania, to name a few, must
be Paradise on earth. There is no correlation between a multiparty system and
greater “democracy” any more than there is a correlation between greater social
justice and bourgeois democracy. This is a 19th century north-Western
European concept when the urban middle class and capitalists were mainly
Liberal while the aristocracy and rural classes were conservative, thus the
two-party system reflected a socioeconomic and cultural divide where religion
played a role in the rural areas and education in the urban ones.

A product of the European Enlightenment, the US followed the European
political trends of creating bourgeois political parties representing capital.
When the working class movement became a force in society owing to the changing
division of labor under industrial capitalism, new ideologies emerged from
Socialism to Anarchism and varieties of others on the left as well as extreme
right wing ones, including Fascism that has its origins in the late 19th
century. The evolution of bourgeois society gave birth to social groups that
did not find expression in the traditional political parties and wanted to have
their own voice at a time that minorities, women and workers were not
represented. Despite pressure from the grassroots for representation, in the US
the mainstream political parties always managed to co-opt third party movements
protesting a particular facet of society.

Whether a country developed a two-party system or a multi-party system, popular
rule expressing individual rights remained a core value of bourgeois democracy,
rather than government taking into account collective interests. Under the
political umbrella of any democratic system that has ever existed, capitalism
has been at its core and this means a social order based on hierarchy of
capital. During the 20th century, democracy became synonymous with
capitalism not just in the US but in most countries around the world. One
reason for the success of political parties claiming their allegiance to
“democracy” is their embracing of a pluralistic value system under an open
society where the consumer is synonymous with the citizen. The US has led the
way in the effort to identify democracy with capitalism and the citizen with
the consumer.

The phenomenal success of the two-party system rests in convincing the
majority of the people that this is “the democratic process”, rather than
representative of capitalist class interest factions. This has been achieved in
the name of “nationalism” and “national interest” rhetoric, as the two-party
system identifies itself with the nation-state and national interest that it
equates with the market economy. At the same time, the two-party system
projects the image that a political party representing the working class is
outside the constitutional and societal purview of the “national interest”,
therefore, it lacks legitimacy. This was as true before the Bolshevik
Revolution as it was after when the bourgeois political parties in the US as
well as throughout the Western World stigmatized working class political
parties as representing labor unions, as though labor unions were an anathema
to society and only pro-capitalist political parties enjoyed legitimacy.

The issue of legitimacy in the eyes of the public is of the utmost
importance for a political party to succeed as much as is the need for the
state claiming to be pluralistic to tolerate all voices to be heard. In the
case of the US, this has not been the case throughout its history. Therefore,
it is not surprising that a working class political party never developed. The
government persecuted grassroots organizing of labor unions and political
activists representing the working class, while the corporate media followed
the government in doing its best to stigmatize any working class movement.

Having no political party to express their interests, the working class in
the US and in many countries around the world turned to the two political
parties representing capital. Labeling a political party “Labor” or “Socialist”
as many have done in Europe and around the world is of course meaningless
because their policies are anti-labor and anti-socialist as much as the
policies of the US Democratic Party are hardly “democratic”. The median worth
of a US congressman is $1 million and the total cost for the congressional
races amounted to $3.7 billion in 2012, campaign contributions mostly from
millionaires. Given the profile of the average US representative in Congress,
and considering that a congressman has no chance of making a career unless s/he
promotes capital through legislation to the detriment of middle class and
workers’ interests how can such a representative claim to be anything other than
an agent for capitalists?

Synoptic View of Third-Party Movements in America

Both George Washington and John
Adams dreaded the idea of a two-party system, arguing that it was tantamount to
a form of despotism for two factions to alternate power. John Adams wrote: There is nothing which I dread so much as a
division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its
leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble
apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our
Constitution. Is the two-party system the reason that the vast majority of
the people never realize the mythical American Dream because the two parties
represent the capitalist class, or does the problem rest elsewhere?

Unlike Europe, the US does not have a history of multi-party system
primarily because the media and mainstream institutions limit their focus on
the two major parties. However, even in Europe, there is a two-party system
that essentially entails alternating in government. This is as true of Great
Britain as of France and Germany, but also of most countries, including
southern Europe, although all of these countries have more than two parties. The
common factor between the US two-party system and the Europe is that on both
sides of the Atlantic the ruling political parties represent the same
socioeconomic elites that make sure there is policy continuity. In short, the
political elites alternating power make certain that the interests of the privileged
socioeconomic elites are not compromised by a third political force
representing the working class.

Within the varied interests of the capitalist class in the last two centuries
there have been political parties that tried to break the monopoly of the
dominant two-party system. In 1848, the Free Soil Party, the first major third
party won 5% of the vote. The Republican Party quickly absorbed it because Abraham
Lincoln after all became the champion of the anti-slave movement and the Civil
War obviated the need for the Free Soil Party. In 1892, the Populist Party, which derived much of
inspiration from Jeffersonian democracy, finally merged with the Democrat Party
at the turn of the century. This was during the Gilded Age when the very rich
were enjoying institutional hegemony and it was clear that both Republican and
Democrat parties represented the wealthy to the neglect of the rest of citizens
at a time that the depression of the 1890s caused immense hardship across
America.

The most significant leftist leader in US history was Eugene Debs (1855 –1926) who started out as a union organizer with the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) and was a Democrat member in his early political caeer in Indiana. A Socialist who had studied the works of Marx among other European Socialists, Debs founded the American Railway Union after the well-known Pullman strike in 1894. To break the strike and prevent future labor-management trouble, President Grover Cleveland used the army and sent Debs to prison. From 1900 until 1920, Debs ran for president, despite harrassment from the state and especially President Wilson who had him convicted in 1918 and sentenced for 10 years under the Espionage Act used to crack down on leftist trade unionists and political activists. Opposing the First World War as one of imperialism backed by capital, Debs noted:

The master class has always declared the wars; the
subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had
all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing
to gain and all to lose—especially their lives.To
turn your back on the corrupt Republican Party and the corrupt
Democratic Party—the gold-dust lackeys of the ruling class—counts for
something. It counts still more...to join a minority party that has an
ideal, that stands for a principle, and fights for a cause.

Debs posed a greater threat for mobilizing workers into a leftist political movement than he did as a presidential candidate. However, the mainstream institutions and especially the press saw him as a threat that must be eliminated from the scene.

Throughout the 20th century, from the Progressive Era when the
lower middle class demanded representation to the early 21st century
when the Green movement became popular, all third-party political movements
have been co-opted by one of the two dominant parties that have faithfully
represented the institutional structure. Franklin D. Roosevelt managed to
co-opt the leftists and de-radicalize the general population while securing
Democrat Party dominance from 1932 until 1952. The same pattern of co-optation
that has been true of left-wing movements Absorbed by the Democrat party also
holds true of right-wing parties that the Republic Party absorbs. In 1948,
Strom Thurmond’s State’s Rights Party
constituency became part of the Republican Party, as did George Wallace’s American IndependentParty in 1968, although there were
Democrat voters in both of those as there were in John Anderson’s Independent
Party in 1980 and even in Ross Perot’s Reform party that was eventually
absorbed by Republicans.

In every election, there are many candidates for president, from serious to
the absurd. The media, however, ignores all political parties, unless it is one
that poses no threat to the status quo, such as the Libertarian or Green Party.
By contrast, the Communist Party has usually run a candidate for national office, but no television,
radio or print media would cover its issue. This does not mean that the
Communist Party has always been serious about presenting a platform and
candidates that would at least carry some political weight. However, about the
only way the Communist Party could possibly receive media attention, even
heavily biased one would be if it ran the Pope as a candidate.

Are Americans Hoping for a Messiah Politician? Donald
Trump as a Self-Proclaimed Messiah

America has always romanticized what it calls its
unique brand of “democracy” and the hero-politician that comes along to unify
the country. Although there are the revered presidents that include Washington,
Jefferson and Lincoln, for the most part politics in America has always been
fragmented and not just in the post-Cold War era as some have suggested. Using
foreign policy and foreign enemies to rally public support behind the flag has
its limitations in time of relative peace. For this reason, politicians focus
on targeted enemies within the country. The Republicans in the 1850s focused on
slave-owners, while two decades later the enemy was the labor organizer. The
Democrats in the 1930s focused on strengthening the central government to
preserve capitalism while creating a social safety net to prevent revolution,
while a decade later they focused on combating Communism at home by bringing
dissidents before Congressional committees that blacklisted people who refused
to accept bourgeois consensus politics.

The hero-politician in American history was not
necessarily a president, governor or senator who was committed to social
justice, but one who managed to transcend the individual interest groups and
forge popular consensus so that the political economy could continue to thrive.
Toward this goal of building consensus in a society that is politically
fragmented largely because a substantial segment of voters remains apathetic,
the strategy that has worked is populism (popular cause or causes among a
segment of the voters), especially on the part of the Republicans from the Barry
Goldwater candidacy in the 1960s until the Tea Party faction of the Republican
Party today. Populism works not just in the US but in all countries, because it
projects an image of “reform” in the interest of the people, but in essence its
goal is to secure the election and continue to serve capital as faithfully as
ever. Billionaire Donald Trump is such a person today who has chosen xenophobia
as the focus of his campaign to excite the Republican Party base.

Trump attracts attention for several reasons. First,
he is a billionaire and a celebrity, something the mainstream media focuses on
whether one is running for office or not because the purpose is to promote
capitalism and its values. Second, Trump combined the traditional Rockefeller
Republican because he is a New York billionaire with the appeal of a right-wing
populist focused on xenophobia. Historically, the xenophobia issue has roots
that date back to the 19th century and it also plays well not only
with the racist crowd, but also the middle class that is looking for someone to
blame given that the economy has recovered but living standards continue to
decline amid a growing socioeconomic gap.

In a recent essay I wrote that people not just in the
US but around the world are looking for a Messiah politician and the one that
presents himself or herself closer to the image will secure votes. On the
Democrat side, Hillary Clinton is simply not capable of presenting herself and
does not even try to do so as a Messiah politician, whereas Trump does and
actually appeals to a segment of the social conservatives who do not like
“Washington insiders” and they do not like the other Republican candidates
because they are not giving the right wing someone to blame for all the
problems society suffers. Although it is highly unlikely he will ever be
elected president, Trump has chosen the right wing populist issue xenophobia as
catalytic for his presidential bid in 2016.

Xenophobia is a very clear issue that the average
conservative voter understands as much in the US as in Europe where racism also
runs very high among conservatives. Xenophobia serves as a cover for political,
economic and social problems society faces, but which are difficult to solve
under the existing system without harming the interests of capital. Running
against Washington insiders as a protest candidate from the right, Trump is
appealing to many Republicans especially since he is a billionaire who embraces
the values of Wall Street. The idea that Trump is a deviation from the
mainstream of the Republic Party is utterly absurd, because this is not the
party of Eisenhower, but of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

In an interview, Trump vowed to “get the bad ones out,” meaning the bad illegal immigrants estimated
at 11 million.“I’m gonna get
rid of the bad ones fast, and I’m gonna send them back. We’re not going to be
putting them in prisons here and pay for them for the next 40 years.” Asked about the illegal aliens who are “not bad”,
Trump replied:“We’re going to see what we’re going to see. It’s a very hard thing
from a moral standpoint, from a physical standpoint, you don’t get them out. …Some
are going to have to go and some – Hey, we’re just going to see what happens.
It’s a very, very big subject and a very complicated subject….The wall’s going
to be built. We’re going to have a great border.”

This simplistic racist perspective, if not completely
unrealistic and impractical approach to a very complex subject with economic
and social ramifications is rather typical of how a right-wing populist proposes
to solve what his political party perceives as a problem that must be solved so
that all of America’s problems simply melt away and every citizen can finally
enjoy the fruits of the American Dream. Although there are those who argue
Trump is doing damage to the party, in fact he is energizing the racist,
xenophobic, warmongering base that is motivated by fear that there is an enemy
out there – the Mexican, the Muslim, the outside world that has intruded into
the American way of life and threatening it. It is not the neoliberal policies
and the corporate welfare system that is responsible for the decline of the
middle class, but the “outsiders” and those intruding in US soil.If only they did not exist, America would
have no problems. The GOP cannot discredit Trump because he is the mirror of
his party, as the preliminary polls indicate nationally as well as in several
states.

If a third party is created what 5 main issues should it address?

If a third party is created, it cannot be a single-issue party, like that
of H. Ross Perot who focused on the debt and built all other issues around that
theme. A political party must have a popular base, and in my view the growing
lower middle class and workers constitute the largest popular base. They are
not represented by either political party, no matter the rhetoric from any
candidate. Bernie Sanders is closest to this profile, but even his platform is
not much different than that of the Republican Party in 1956.

If there were five top issues on which a new political party could form its
platform, my list would include the following. Not that the issues I have
listed have even the remotest possibility that a third political party would
adopt them, but they are at the core of challenges that America faces in the 21st
century.

1

Social Justice

This is almost an alien concept in the political dialogue of American
politicians from both parties. The rights and general welfare of all people,
not just one small social class that finances political campaigns in return for
legislation that keeps this social class privileged while the remainder of the
population suffers, is an anathema in political discourse. In fact, not even
mainstream academics raise this issue publicly, because they know it does not
pay to offend the establishment. What is social justice? Is it a utopian
fantasy that advocates equality not just of opportunity, but at all levels as
judged by outcomes in the social, political, economic and cultural domains?
Social justice in a bourgeois society expects that the basic economic needs of
human beings are met, and that society is free of poverty and violence, of
xenophobia and racism, of sexism and homophobia, of social inequalities that
private and/or public institutions promote.

2.Downward
socioeconomic mobilization

It is no secret that downward socioeconomic mobility is a reality in
American society in the last four decades. This is largely because of the
Reagan neoliberal commitment to transfer massive wealth from the lower classes
to the elites, and to transfer public resources from social welfare to
corporate welfare. Social programs, education and health care, social security,
affordable housing, minimum wage and a massive gap between the highest paid
corporate executives and the average worker are some of the reasons for the
downward mobility in America. Some politicians on both political parties agree
there is a problem with the declining middle class but not a single one, except
Bernie Sanders, blames the capitalist system for it. Instead, the fault rests
with government, as though this is an entity that comes to Washington from Mars
rather than the lobbyist peddling influence.

3.Human Rights, Civil
Rights and Police State Methods

Rights of political prisoners, civil rights of minorities, crime and
justice are inter-related issues and have to do with the correlation between
the institutionalization of the “war on terror” that has had an impact on the
decline of respect for human rights, civil rights and criminalizing minorities
and the poor. Police harassing, arresting, and killings black and Latino youth
in cold blood is not an isolated event, but a pattern of behavior across the
country. The statistics on the US prison population speaks very clearly about
the racist criminal justice system that exists, even under a black president. The
US refusal to respect UN human right charter also speaks volumes of the
arrogance and duplicity of US policy, because the same government in Washington
demands compliance with UN human rights by other countries, including Cuba and
Iran. It is amazing that the US media has no sense of self-reflection when it
demands that all other countries respect human rights, civil rights, women’s
rights, and refrain from police state methods, but the US is guilty of the very
things it accuses its adversaries. This is the ultimate absurdity of “American
Exceptionalism”.

4.Restructuring of
the political system.

The existing political system is heavily dependent on financial
contributions and lobbyists exerting policy influence. Despite many
organizations trying to express their voice, everything from gay rights groups
to environmental and labor unions ones, the voice that matters at the local,
state and federal levels is that of large businesses. For example, if there is
a choice for a city to invest in a new stadium for a football team versus
public education, the money will go to subsidize the very wealthy owner of the
football team at the expense of public education. Both the football franchise
and education have their voices heard in government, but only that of the
millionaire football owner matters. This is only a small sample of how
government pours resources into the private sector at the expense of the public
and calls it democracy.

Ending corporate control of the political process – campaign finance and
government reform so that politicians are not accountable to the corporate
sector but to the general public would go a long way in building democracy in
America. All political candidates agree that the influence of money in politics
is corrupting the system, but they have done nothing about it for decades.
Beyond eliminating the direct role of private campaign money, the political
system itself must be geared to serving ALL people and not merely the
capitalist class as it has been and have the media call this democracy.

5.Foreign Policy and
Defense

Foreign policy based on defense of the nation’s the territorial integrity
ought to be the criteria and not “imperial” policies intended to expand US
corporate interests throughout the world by any means necessary from direct
military intervention to covert operations. The defense budget is the largest
in the world for a country that clearly has very serious public debt problems
eating away at the middle class socioeconomic fabric. The massive spending on
defense intended to maintain the defense industries healthy and provide the
illusion of security as well as leverage for the US to secure market share is
unsustainable.

The reality of China as the world’ preeminent economic power in the 21st
century is one the US helped create because it spent itself to second place
during the Cold War and the manufactured “war on terror”. These are
anachronistic policies, of the mid-20th century and have no place in
our time. The behavior of the US in foreign affairs is very much reminiscent of
the British Empire in its decline when it tried just about everything
militarily, but still continued to decline. In the absence of crafting a new
alliance system that rethinks the value of OAS, SEATO and NATO, the US will
eventually spend itself to oblivion no differently than Great Britain.

Conclusions

The success of the major political parties in the US as well as in most
countries around the world is indeed the co-optation strategy that manages to pay
lip service to the middle class and workers but subordinates their interests to
capital. Democracy allows for open
access into the system that projects the image of theoretical equal
participation by all citizens and political movements when in reality
participation is limited to representatives of capital. Given this reality, a
multi-party system or a two-party system amounts to the same thing because
ultimately the government will represent capital. If a government emerges in a
country where it tries to compromise the interests of capital, the rest of the
world, governments and international financial institutions, make it so
difficult for such a government to succeed that it capitulates.

New political parties arise out of a need on the part of a segment in
society that feels the existing political parties are not representative of all
people. Influenced by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the Founding Fathers viewed
political parties as factions unrepresentative of the general welfare. The
reality of class politics meant that political parties were a necessary
mechanism around which competing elites of the early American republic revolved
to express their interests. Interestingly enough, throughout the republic’s
two-hundred year history, many Americans unlike their European counterparts, do not
have a strong party affiliation. Even today, between 40 and 50 percent of the
citizens polled declare independent of party affiliation. This is in itself
inactive that neither party particularly expresses their interests and
aspirations, although most people vote their aspirations rather than actual
interests.

The third party in the US can either come from the conservative camp or
from the left-of-center camp and it is highly unlikely to attract much popular
support because the media inculcate into the public the idea that “consensus”
politics is and must remain at the heart of American society. In other words,
the implication is that a Socialist candidate whose platform could represent
the majority of the population is not consensus because such a candidate would
not incorporate the interests of the wealthiest Americans.

We have evidence from history that small third parties act as spoilers for
one or the other major parties, but they hardly make a dent in the political
process or in society. In a country as large as the US, it takes an incredible
amount of money under the existing system to finance a political campaign and
run against the major parties that enjoy the backing not just of the media, but
of the entire institutional structure. The two political parties have been
operating on the assumption that the voters have two choices and of course both
work within an existing political, economic and social structure intended to
preserve the status quo, rather than change it. The entrenched two-party
political system also serves capital that is behind the two political parties.

No matter how much these two try to differentiate themselves, their
differences are mostly on social and cultural issues, rather than systemic
economic and political ones. For example, even the platform of Democrat Bernie
Sanders, a person the media sees as a Socialist, is actually about the same as
that of the Republican Party in 1956 when Eisenhower was the incumbent
president. This is proof of how far to
the right the left Democrats have moved and how far to the extreme right the
Republicans have moved.

Regardless of whether a third and a
fourth party emerge in the US, the system will remain the same until such time
as a major economic crisis results in a social crisis and the political system
begins to crack while a new one emerges, presumably a system that better serves the
majority and not just the top one-third of the population with one-percent
owning most of the wealth and determining policy for the rest of the 99 percent
because they are able to finance political campaigns.

A political party that is organized “top-down”, instead of emerging from the
grassroots is obviously a reflection of the elites that created it to preserve
and expand their interests. When a grassroots movement tries to organize
because it feels marginalized in society, the result is that the mainstream
quickly co-opts it and de-radicalizes its followers. This happened in the
depression of the 1890s, the Great Depression of the 1930s, and the Civil
Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

The dominant political parties have the party machine tools at the local,
state and national levels to bring any dissident movement into the mainstream.
Otherwise, with the help of the media, they destroy it. Therefore, I do not see
a viable third-party movement or movements until the next deep recession in
America later this century, perhaps in the 2030s or 2040s. Because deep
recessions or depressions cause economic polarization, the inevitable result
will be social and political polarization, the ingredients which we see present
in American society today that is much more polarized just beneath the surface
than the “consensus-oriented” political, economic and media elites would have
the public believe.

Thursday, 16 July 2015

Iran as the de facto Hegemonic Power
in the Middle EastDoes the US-Iran agreement
(14 June 2015) that calls for Iran to abandon nuclear weapons ambitions in
exchange for lifting of Western sanctions mean a new era in relations between
the US and the Middle East? Syria, Turkey, and Egypt publicly praised the deal
as a step forward because it would mean greater regional stability and greater
economic integration that would benefit all the economies. The Palestinians are
also hopeful that the international community would exert pressure on Israel
for a political solution to settle the chronic dispute. Unlike Iran, however,
the Palestinians have no leverage wile Israel enjoys enormous influence because
the US is solidly behind it as it has been since the Truman presidency.

There are those who applaud
the US for ignoring Israel and its extreme right-wing allies in the US that
have done everything in their power to sabotage the negotiations between Iran
and the West. Naturally, there are the pro-defense industry elements that
regret these developments as much as those hiding behind a right wing ideology
to justify animosity of any kind of rapprochement between the West and Iran, an
Islamic republic that has been openly anti-West since 1979. Others see this
deal as an opportunity to contain Israel from pursuing military adventures, as
well as Saudi Arabia funding jihadists while claiming to support the struggle
of the Palestinians but all along siding with Israel on its opposition to Iran
as the major power that has a dominant voice to determine the regional balance
of power.

No matter where one stands
ideologically and politically, the Iran deal has sent a very strong signal
across the world that the US and its EU partners finally acknowledge that Iran
is the most important regional power in the Middle East after a power gap
created by the US-led overt and covert military destruction of Iraq and Syria.
After decades of trying to contain Iran and undermine it in every possible
manner from economic sanctions to military action in surrounding countries, the
US and its EU partners have finally acknowledged that Iran is the catalyst to
the regional balance of power in the Middle East.

On major issues that
include stabilizing Iraq and defeating the jihadist ISIS fanatics that the US
and its Arab and Turkish allies helped to create in order to bring down Syria’s
Assad regime it is important to have Iran’s cooperation. Moreover, it is futile
to isolate Iran from the Western World, given the increasing global position of
China that has cordial relations with Iran. In short, the strategic and
economic benefits to the Western countries and multinational corporations are
such that it was simply detrimental to their interests to continue the
sanctions when it was possible to use them as a bargaining chip for preventing
Iran developing nuclear weapons.

What does the Iran-US deal
mean for the Palestinians? Israel was and remains adamantly against Iran-US
rapprochement and has done everything it can to make sure it is never
implemented. One reason is that it feels threatened, although it is Israel that
actually possesses nuclear weapons today not Iran, and although the US
guarantees its security. Israel simply does not want a US-Western
acknowledgment that Iran is indeed the real regional power that has the
capacity to contain its neighbors, including its arch enemy Saudi Arabia. The
US, however, is driven by the reality of limited resources, including the
prospect that foreign aid including aid to Israel must be trimmed back to
realize savings to pay down the debt. In short, Israel sees the US as a less
friendly than ever because Washington has failed to follow Tel Aviv in foreign
policy, regardless of the US pledges about providing for Israel’s security.

Does the new role of Iran
as the presumably acknowledged hegemonic power of the Middle East mean a
settlement of the Palestinian Question? Some may believe so, just as they did
when the Cold War ended when there was no reason to hide behind the East-West
confrontation as a pretext to perpetuate the status quo as the permanent
occupation of Palestinians by Israel. Certainly, the South African apartheid
system came down, the Irish conflict ended, so why not a solution for the
plight of the Palestinians after seven decades? On the surface, it certainly
appears that the Iran deal works in favor of the Palestinians, but it actually
strengthens Israel because it is on the same side as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and
the Gulf states, while Egypt is positioning itself to see what perks it can
derive from any forthcoming deal on the Palestinian issue. In the final analysis,
major US and European corporations, top banks, airplane and energy, consumer
product and pharmaceutical companies, all wanted to be a part of the rapidly growing
Iranian economy in which China and Russia enjoy a role. In short, the benefits
of integrating Iran are simply enormous for the 21st century. Can
the same be true if Israel settles its chronic dispute with the Palestinians, or
is it simply an issue of ensuring stability that defense contractors and right
wing ideologues oppose in any case because this is contrary to their interests?

Israel and Human RightsIs there a chance that
Israel will stop violating the human rights of Palestinians because of the
Iran-US deal? On the contrary, my guess is that Israel will become even
harsher. World-wide moral support for the Palestinians on the part of people,
organizations such as the United Nations, and governments is very nice, but it
hardly constitutes leverage to move the process forward. Boycotting Israeli
businesses in the same manner as US businesses boycotted South African
businesses shortly before Mandela is more tangible and some companies are doing
as much, but this too is not having much impact because it is not like the Western
sanctions on Iran. Precisely because Israel is adamantly opposed to any change
in the domestic or regional status quo, it is more likely to move in the
direction of military confrontations with the Palestinians than a political one
based on the Iran-US deal. This means more human rights violations, no matter
what the UN and world community say about Israel.

On 23 July 2014, Navi Pillay, UN high
commissioner for human rights, announced that Israel's military action in Gaza
during July may constitute a "war crime" because the targets were
children and the demolition of houses. The UN Human Rights Council in Geneva
has convened an emergency discussion on the matter. However, there is
absolutely no doubt that the US will block any effort to bring to justice the
war criminals, largely because Washington had given Israel the green light on
the operations that resulted in war crimes.

There is no doubt that even the most monstrous human being that is still in
possession of his faculties, a modicum of moral fiber, and just a touch of
humanity would not admit that it is appropriate to kill children, that they are
collateral damage victims, or any other excuse that we have heard from Tel Aviv
and its supporters in the US and the West. This is not a lesson in moral
absolutism, but at least human beings ought to agree on some basic principles,
including killing of children is immoral and a war crime to be punished
accordingly. The exact same principle is applied to all people, including Hamas
when it too engages in killing Israeli children, and the same punishment must
be accorded to that group as well for its war crimes. The World Court at the
Hague has only proceeded with cases against Africans and some from the former
Yugoslav Republic, leaving out anyone from the white-dominated Western World,
thus making a mockery of the court.

At the root of this conflict is US complicity because of massive aid provided
to Israel on a sustained basis, but also broader Western complicity that simply
follows the US lead on Middle East policy. The other major issue is Arab
indifference, largely because the West has been very successful in keeping the
Arabs divided, and they have been using the Palestinian conflict largely as a
pretext to maintain the status quo, while in essence cooperating with the US
that always backs Israel no matter what war crimes it commits. In addition,
Saudi Arabia sees Iran as an arch-enemy largely because it realizes that Iran
is the hegemonic regional power. Therefore, Saudi Arabia has been financing
jihadists in Syria and Yemen with the aim of undermining Iran, a futile
endeavor that has gone nowhere, except to enrich Western defense contractors
selling weapons to Saudis.

The Israeli war and
collective punishment of Palestinians that has women and children as the
majority of the victims is causing a great deal of guilt among humane and
rational secularist Israelis who want to see an end to the conflict and a
permanent political solution. Demonstrating Arab indifference to Palestinians,
an article in the Jerusalem Post noted that during the war (July 2014) the Arab
media was more interested in the Soccer World Cup out of Brazil than it was on
what Hamas and Israel were doing. The Israeli newspaper notes that with the
ISIS Jihadists in Syria and Iraq attracting attention, a possible Kurdish
declaration of independence from Iraq, and a host of other areas of conflict in
Muslim countries, from Yemen and Libya to Afghanistan Arab media has not taken
as much notice. This view was confirmed by Turkey’s Premier Erdogan who
insisted that Arab indifference is as reprehensible as the silence of the US
and the entire Western World over this issue.

It is estimated that in the last fourteen years, about 1400 Palestinian
children have been killed and many more wounded; more than seven thousand
children have been detained, interrogated and tortured by Israeli authorities;
about half of the children exposed to intermittent war conditions suffer from
post-traumatic stress disorders. Israeli policy under the current and past
regimes has been that the only children taken into account as human are
Israeli, while Palestinian children are those belonging to terrorists. This
view was very clearly expressed in a letter from Prime Minister Netanyahu to
Obama in December 2012 on the occasion of the Sandy Hook massacres in the US.
Reverting to the “victimization” mindset and using the reprehensible holocaust
of Jews by Nazis, the Israeli government gives itself license to engage in
collective punishment and insist that it is beyond accountability of
international war crimes laws. The reason for this is only because the US that
enjoys military superpower status provides all the diplomatic, military,
economic, and massive propaganda cover for Israel whose only issue is security
for itself even if it means killing en masse and indiscriminately.

The more serious issue is how the US and Western media cover the slaughter of
Palestinian children by Israel. Amid the mass destruction of Gaza, the US and
most Western media outlets have been focusing on other stories. Even the New
York Times that likes to claim “objectivity” has been almost silent on the
massacre of Palestinian children, while devoting lots of space to the three
Israeli teens missing since July 2, 2014. The three innocent Israeli teens
deserve lots of coverage without question, but do the 1400 massacred
Palestinian deserve any? Perhaps more absurd as well as grossly inaccurate
is another New York Times story on
why many Americans are siding with Israel the militarist aggressor intent on
ethnic cleansing rather than the Palestinian victims.

To justify its biased
pro-Israel coverage, the New York Times
argued that Arab Spring failed to bring about democracy in the Arab World, thus
Israel stands alone as a “true democracy”, no matter its war crimes against
Palestinians as the UN has concluded. In the entire history of Israel is there
any time when war was launched against Palestinians and Arab neighbors that the
US and the media-manipulated public opinion ever sided with Palestinians?
Blatant racism on the basis of religion and skin color is very evident here,
but even worse, we have a very clear case of journalism that is hardly worthy
of the title.

The public would have far
greater respect for such media outlets if they simply stated that they are
mouthpieces of Tel Aviv and Washington, rather than projecting their reporting
as “objective”. Instead, we have a double-standard practiced on a sustained
basis not just by the US media, but the European as well, trying to find just
about any pretext to demonize the victims in the conflict. Under such
conditions, why is anyone surprised when Turkey’s premier Erdogan lashes out at
racism of the West against Muslims? All studies show that Western media is
heavily pro-Israel and anti-Muslim, depicting Muslims as terrorists with strong
racist undertones and stereotyping them, while personalizing the stories of the
Israelis. In short, there are no limits to the political propaganda promoting
militarism and aggression and suppressing the option of a political solution
when it comes to resolving the conflict in question. The role of the media is indeed
an obstacle to cultivating a constructive climate to reach peace between Israel
and the Palestinians, especially in the absence of Palestinian leverage that
Iran enjoys internationally.

This is not to argue that
Hamas is made up of boy scouts that the Arabs are angels by nature and the
Israelis are inherently evil. Nor does it help those interested in a
Palestinian solution to argue that Israelis are the new Nazis in the Middle
East, despite their policy of apartheid that is very similar to that of former
South Africa. Israel has every right to self-defense and peace within its
own borders. Because Israel never approved of US diplomatic solutions in Syria
and Iran, nor US rapprochement with Iran, Obama had to give the green light to
the Gaza military operations in July 2014, while in return promising as few
million dollars to the Palestinians to take care of their medical and other
needs.

The ultimate
insult in military confrontations that Israel engages periodically is that the
US, which has approved and backed them, steps in after mounting world protests to
present itself as the "peacemaker" and objective intermediary. That
the militarist super power behind Israel tries to present itself as the peace
broker is insulting to all people, but especially to Palestinians who know that
the US has had a role in killing their children and backing the status quo of
no permanent peace on the Palestinian Question.The media
always projects the image of Israel as the real victim in the wars it launches
against the Palestinians and the US as the peace broker. Anything that the UN does to
condemn Israel has no impact because it enjoys US support in the Security Council
where veto is readily exercised, no matter the magnitude of the problem, from
war crimes to seizing land illegally. Although Israel has historically ignored
the UN on many issues from seizing Palestinian land and resources to
systematically violating human rights, it has suffered no consequences because
the US as patron state is behind Israel.

There are those who maintain
that every conflict in which Israel has been engaged involves economic
interests, directly or indirectly. For example, it is no secret that Israel
controls the water resources, but it also has an interest in securing control
of energy resources. It has been in negotiations with Cyprus for undersea
explorations of natural gas and oil, and it has also been interested in
undersea oil of Greece. When Russia decided to cut out Israel from the GAZPROM
gas pipeline and run it from Syria and Lebanon to Gaza, Israel went to war in
June 2014. The idea is to deprive Palestinians from having any access to
natural resources that can be used as leverage or would make Palestinians more
self-sufficient.

One-State or Two-State Solution?The two-state solution has
failed because it brought nothing but war and destruction to the Palestinians
for many decades. Moreover, the end of the Cold War with the US decision to
replace the Cold War with the war on terror meant that the stigma of having the
label “terrorist” as Israel and its right-wing allies in the US and Europe
insisted on calling Palestinians cried out for a new strategy. Working within
the system to support left wing Israeli parties as part of a coalition is one
strategy to change the political dynamics inside Israel. The failure of uprisings
and guerilla military conflicts, combined with the absence of any Arab state
backing Palestinians, the US insisting on blind support of Israel no matter how
destructive its policies and detrimental to US interests have convinced some
Palestinians that an internal solution is about the only leverage the people
have left. Some view guerrilla war as a thing of the past, or they associate it
with ISIS and al-Qaeda or other jihadists groups, rather than liberation
armies. Of course, Israel and the Western press and governments go out of their
way to portray Palestinians as terrorists simply because they are fighting for
a homeland and against colonial oppression.

Abandoning the armed struggle
and working within the system would mean securing basic rights and sharing
power at all institutional levels, at least in theory. This would then be the
Palestinian leverage that is more powerful theoretically than anything coming
from the outside world. If there is no leverage that the Palestinians can use
to negotiate a solution to their satisfaction, then the only thing left to do
is work within the Israeli parliamentary system. Israeli Prime Minister
Benjamin Netanyahu with the full support of right wing political elements is a
committed Zionist who wants neither the two-state solution nor the single-state
state solution as many Palestinians envision it. Palestinians know that the
majority of Israeli Jews strongly oppose a single-state solution and it is not
just the Zionists who want a religious identity to transcend the democratic
image of the state. The Russia-Jewish influx has made the right wing parties
more popular and a right wing coalition regime will probably remain in power
for many years, unless an economic crisis impacts the country in a detrimental
way.

The rightist trend of
Israeli politics has been a reality in the last two decades. This does not necessarily
explain the unwillingness to find a solution to the Palestinian Question as
some Jewish and Palestinian analysts believe because they hold hope for a
solution with a leftist regime that favors a secular rather than a Zionist
state. After, all, for decades the center-left was in power and the
Palestinians suffered wars and repression just as they have under the right
wing. That the center-left identified with the secularists and not the Zionists
like the right wing is far more interested in co-opting the Palestinian
population in total and extending the same rights and privileges is an
attractive idea. However, even non-Zionists committed to Israel as a secular
state may have a concern about integrating the entire Palestinian population
that would then have a major voice in public policy and society’s direction. There
is the fear that more than 3 million Palestinians who live in Jordan, Lebanon,
and Syria would return and become the majority, a fear hardly justified by the
reality of economic limitations within Israel for all of those people to make a
living.

A more likely scenario is
that the Palestinians as a minority in society would meet a fate no different
than black South Africans after Nelson Mandela ended apartheid. Another likely
scenario is that the Palestinians would be no different than American blacks
before the Civil Rights movement. I am not at all amazed that according to a
public opinion poll in Israel, one-third to as many as one-half of Israelis do not
want Palestinians working for them or work next to them. Denying Palestinians
the right to live in peace and harmony because Zionist ideologues leading the
country have convinced the masses to live in fear of the Palestinian “terrorist
monster”, because a handful of weapons producers want to make greater profits
by keeping conflict alive, because the Jewish Diaspora feels betterabout themselves supporting militarist
solutions with its checkbook, because the Israeli lobby is extremely powerful
in US politics is at the core of maintaining the status quo that is as criminal
as it was for the Christians to stand by and watch governments from the Black
Death to the Third Reich persecute European Jews.

Are there enough
enlightened Israeli Jews to collaborate with Palestinians in finding common
ground through the one-state solution process? My view is that it is worth
further exploration because Palestinians have no friends in the outside world
that would do anything for them other than express moral support. Palestinians
must at least explore the solution from within and see how far they get while
at the same time see who on the outside is able to offer assistance toward a
solution both sides would accept. The two-state solution has run its course as
has the idea of peace negotiations that Israel under the right wing regime will
not accept without essentially forcing Palestinians to live in ghettos and
reduced to the class of the “untouchables”. Integration within Israeli society
will not be difficult because of profound suspicions on both sides, and in the
end it may not work any better than Jim Crow laws in the US.

Despite the Iran deal, US
behavior in the Middle East has been to destabilize the region, to keep it as
integrated as possible to the West by any means including military intervention,
and to continue providing massive foreign aid to Israel that contributes to
instability and opposes any kind of settlement with the Palestinians unless it
is one that reduces the tiny occupies lands into an even worse ghetto than it
has been. In short, US foreign policy does not offer hope for a Palestinian solution
just because Iran struck a deal with the US and the West.

The new role of China in
global affairs may indeed change the dynamic inside Israel and force the US
into a compromise. In August 2014, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi announced
China's five-point peace proposal on settling the Israel-Palestine conflict,
which included abandoning military solutions and seeking a political settlement
in order to advance regional and global stability.

It is of the utmost importance that all people recognize basic human
rights laws as the UN has estiablished them, and this includes Arabs and
Jews. Negotiations cannot take place otherwise. All forms of racism and
disrimination must never be a part of a dialogue to settle any dispute,
otherwise there cannot be a permanent solution, Hugging each other will
not do it, but seeking a politically, socially, economically and
culturally viable solution with which the majority - certainly not all
people - will be able to live with is the goal. To do this, Israel must
realize it is fighting the battles of the mid-20th century in the early
21st century. The only issue is to have Israeli
government move forward with a solution based on human rights as well as
social justice for all people who live in Israel and the Territories.
The object is not to promote hatred on any side, not against the Jewish
people not against Arabs, not against anyone, and certainly no
double-dealing Saudi Arabian style. This too is a dead-end strategy and
eventually it runs out of steam.

Unless there is goodwill to sit
together and find a solution to this issue, I just do not see how this
is in the interests of the the Palestinians but especially Israel that
will find itself increasingly isolated by the world community as more
governments and companies refuse to do business with it. Already, there
are corporations under pressure to divest and China has set terms of its
own in order to do business there. C hina wants Israeli technology, but
it can get it elsewhere. Israel needs Chinese investment and does not
wish to be left out. China is already economically nmber one in the
world - PPP terms according to the IMF - and number one economic
presence in Africa, As the century unfolds, China will replace US
influence not just in Africa but in the Middle East. Unlike the US,
China will not cave in to Israel's political will on the Palsestinian
Question because the internal and international dynamics are very
different for China than the US. China is a prominent player
in Africa and will be even more so in the 21st century, so it has a
major interest in regional stability at a time the US has been working directly
and indirectly to create instability. While China’s role can be significant and
will become even more so in the decades ahead, without the US stepping forward
to lead on this issue now, the otherwise politically divided Palestinians are
left on their own to pursue varieties of solutions, which includes working
within the Israeli parliamentary system to influence progressive politicians
into reaching a permanent settlement. Israel will be wise to look
down the road and figure out if it wants peaceful co-existence with the
world's number economic power as the US will cut aid to Tel Aviv, or
whether it wants to pursue Zionism and hardhsip that comes with it in
every respect.

Friday, 10 July 2015

In 2001 throughout the Western World, the Middle East and North Africa,
grassroots movements challenged mainstream politics, in which category belongs
'Messiah politics' - I would also characterize it as 'Savior politics' or
'hero-worship politics'. This is not to suggest that the choice in “social
contracts”, as Enlightenment thinkers defined the concept, is between 'Messiah
politics' - salvation from a Savior acting as a benevolent master of the masses
- or grassroots movements invariably linked to protest, dissidence and /or
revolution - salvation from below with the masses' participation. However,
in the early 21st century when markets are imposing complete
hegemony over all aspects of society from politics to culture, I am suggesting
that the dichotomy between 'Messiah politics' and grassroots movements appears
to be growing sharper owing to the huge gap between what "Messiah
politics" pledges either under “democracy's” promising theoretical
rhetoric vs. the reality of socioeconomic polarization, or under an authoritarian
regime that pledges to act benevolently on behalf of the people, but in reality
serves very narrow interests.
Whether under the authoritarian 'one-man rule', or an elected representative
model, in all cases and under disparate political and ideological models,
''Messiah politics" has the following three common denominators:

a) Benevolent
ruler: Projecting the notion that society's welfare rests in the hands
of one person (savior-political leader) theoretically acting on behalf of all
citizens and invoking “national interest”.

b) Class Hegemony: The "Messiah" - elected for limited
term or ruler for life - often represents the national and international
socioeconomic elites to the detriment of the masses that Messiah politics
claims it wishes to save.
c) Machiavellian
Rule: The criteria for Messiah politics is not necessarily social
justice or any moral foundation, let alone a benevolent goal, though it could
be as a theoretical framework, but rather a practical Machiavellian projection
of and the quest for power, glory and riches that people identify with the
'Savior politician'.

Does "Messiah politics" differ from 'apocalyptic' politics, and does
it have an inordinate influence in the public mind during the age of mass
politics both in Western countries and traditional/religious societies? Messiah
politics transcends regime, ideology, political party, national, ethnic or
religious identity, as well as historical epoch. While the focus of Messiah
politics is on "saving" the nation-state (in the Westphalian sense of
the term “sovereignty is the principle of international law that each nation state
has sovereignty over its territory and domestic affairs”) from domestic and external forces trying to disrupt its sociopolitical
consensus, there have also been Messiah political figures who have tried to
save the region surrounding the nation-state, or the world at large through
revolution, wars, imperialist (political, economic, cultural) policies intended
to spread the values and institutions on a global scale with the goal of
imposing hegemony. In other words, the charismatic element of the Messiah
political figure is not limited to the status quo ruler, but extends to the
dissident or rebel using the same means to mobilize grassroots support for
regime change.

Apocalyptic Politics vs. Messiah Politics

The concept of a 'political savior' equated with a spiritual prophet (Messiah
politics) in charge of society is as universal and as timeless as civilization
and owes its origin to concentrated powers of defense (warfare) and society's
welfare in the hands of a single person – the tribal war chieftain in early civilization,
and later King and Emperor ruling with the military as the power base and the
priests and nobility as the privileged popular base.

The origin of the state, which accounted for the division of labor and class-based
society with institutions reflecting it, gave rise to the origin of Messiah
politics that we have inherited and maintain five thousand years since the
emergence of city-states in ancient Mesopotamia. The intersection of politics
and religion accounts for the “messiah politics” phenomenon throughout history.
Even in contemporary times when secular civilization is thoroughly materialistic,
the general conceptualization of Messiah politics maintains its religious aura,
regardless of religion or absence of it.

The concept of Messiah politics differs from 'Apocalyptic politics',
although in some cases there can be convergence. Apocalyptic politics is about
predicting Armageddon resulting from the forces of good and evil, the struggle
of morality or God as subjectively defined and the anti-Christ, for example.
Christian "Apocalyptism" has a long history in the West, especially
among fundamentalists who fear the strong state and deem that sin is measured
by the scale of a strong public sector and a trend toward greater materialism,
hedonism and moral relativism.

The solution for "Apocalyptism" is greater adherence to faith
(institutionalized religion) and a messiah-style leader who protects religious
traditions on which society is built and conducts policy on the basis of moral
absolutes, targeting for elimination any threat to traditionalism - for
example, mode of dress and behavior, gay rights, abortion, replacing scientific
theories resting on physical cosmology with religious cosmology, etc. Furthermore,
"Apocalyptism" in some cases provides a religiously-based legal
system as a means of preventing the degradation of society that would otherwise
be viewed as secular progress. If society is headed for ruin owing to the
economic and political system in the hands of 'secularist sinners', then the
essential problem of "Apocalyptic politics" is to propose a Messiah-on-earth
solution to prevent, or at least postpone, Armageddon.

A Historical Overview of "Messiah Politics"

“Messiah politics” differs in scope from "Apocalyptic politics", in
so far as the former is a much broader concept that includes rulers of any type
with strong hegemonic role and societal acceptance that the individual can save
society through divine inspiration or divine right principle, but not limited
to those alone. Messiah politics is a concept as ancient as civilization when
kings and emperors identified with deities and people engaged in worship of
their leaders that they deemed closer to divinity than mere mortals. Hence,
paternalism whether under the Czars of Russia, Chinese Emperors, modern-day
dictators, or elected presidents is an integral part of Messiah politics. The
ruler is the father of the country and embodies its welfare (Thomas Hobbes paternalistic
concept of sovereignty), thus he must not be questioned by his subjects who are
prone toward atomistic behavior.

With the advent of the Renaissance era's drastic change in Europe owing to the
Commercial Revolution (transition from subsistence to commercial agriculture and
long-distance trade), Messiah politics evolved as the idea of a savior
leader in the image of Machiavelli's "The Prince" of in Thomas
Hobbes "The Leviathan". The emergence of capitalism and new division
of labor – capitalist and worker replacing landlord and serf – accounted for modification
of Messiah politics in so far as the monarch Messiah would have to cater to the
interests of the bourgeoisie along with the nobility and upper clergy.

After the American and French Revolutions, elected officials emerged as guardian-saviors
of the electoral system itself - George Washington and Thomas Jefferson
embodied the concept of 'fathers of the nation'. The French Revolution was
obviously broader in its definition of Messiah politics, considering that all
Revolutionary leaders from the early more bourgeois ones to the later more egalitarians
fell into the Messiah mold because some people and they saw themselves from
that perspective. The Emperors Napoleon Bonaparte and half a century later Napoleon
III were probably the two most important figures of messiah politicians
representing the grandeur France was seeking in competing with industrialized Great
Britain.

It can be argued, however, that Abraham Lincoln belonged in the same
category, largely because of his impact to 'save' American society by ending
slavery as an obstacle to progress domestically and internationally. Whether he
“saved” black slaves or white capitalists - in essence helped end an archaic
institution that was an obstacle to industrial capitalism operating under free
wage labor rules – is another matter. After all, in 1861 Tsar Alexander II
issued a decree freeing Russia’s serfs also as part of broader reforms to
modernize society just as the US was working toward a similar goal at the same
time. Than an absolutist monarch freed serfs about the same time as the
democratically-elected US president is very telling not about Messiah politics
but the top-down reforms necessary to modernize society and make it competitive
with the rest of the world. Social justice did not result any more for the
Russian serfs after 1861 than it did for the former American slaves after 1865.

In the 20th century there were a number of revolutionary leaders belonging to
the category of 'Messiah politics' that they redefined. Those included Vladimir
Lenin (leader of the Bolshevik Revolution), Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, (leader of
the nationalist-reformist movement in Turkey), Mao Tse-tung (leader of the
Chinese Communist revolution), Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egyptian nationalist social
reformer), revolutionary leaders Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Ho Chi Minh the father
of Communist-nationalist Vietnam, Sukarno the non-Aligned leader of Indonesia,
and Fidel Castro who revolutionized Latin American politics by taking over Cuba
and challenging US hemispheric hegemony. As leaders of the political opposition,
they represented hope for social justice and progress. Their brand of Messiah
politics rested on the hope that change would raise the dignity of their people
amid massive changes owing to industrial, technological and scientific
developments in the Western World exploiting labor and natural resources of the
rest of the planet and imposing its economic and political hegemony.

Liberal-democratic elected leaders Charles De Gaulle, Dwight D. Eisenhower,
John F. Kennedy, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Barak Obama were swept
into power as a result of Messiah politics mystique surrounding their
leadership of forging middle class consensus while strengthening capitalism. Of
course, it is true that there are degrees of popularity and power that
individual leaders under the category of Messiah politics have enjoyed through
the ages. One cannot possibly compare the popularity and power of Nasser ruler
for life, for example, at home and globally with Obama. The first black US
president was elected to office and had very constrictive institutional
perimeters of power that he had to serve faithfully as a status quo leader.
This is in sharp contrast with Egypt’s Nasser who came to power to change the
status quo at home and regionally, while having the military as his power base and
the broader social classes as his political base.

There are presidents like George Washington or leaders of movements like
Mahatma Gandhi who have become demigod legends as part of the 'Messiah
politics' mythology that surrounds their legacy that a majority of the
population deems constructive for society. There vast differences between Washington
who respected the international order based on European imperialism as long as
the US as a free nation was not exploited, and Gandhi who opposed imperialism
on political, economic, social, and moral grounds.

There are also leaders like North Korea's Kim Jong-il whose funeral
(December 2011) revealed that Messiah politics can easily be transformed into
'demigod politics' in order to maintain a political system through a massive
public relations campaign that the state stages. While it would not have
surprised people if Kim’s funeral scene had taken place 3000 years ago, they
found it eerie in the 21st century because it blatantly revealed the
degree to which Messiah politics penetrates society. The psychology of a nation
is very much dependent on image cultivation, more so today in the age of mass
communications than in the Renaissance when Machiavelli and Hobbes crafted
their political philosophy based on paternalism.

Nationalist populist politician Vladimir Putin appealing to the 'New Russia' of
a rising middle class, and former president Hugo Chavez appealing to the
working class and peasantry of Venezuela belong in the category of Messiah politics.
Although the latter proved far more popular and with far more staying power in
the country’s political culture than his Russian counterpart resting his
political base on Russia’s wealthy class, the modality of power is not very
different. Clearly, Chavez had a firm commitment to social justice rooted in
Venezuela’s “caudillo” political tradition, while Putin merely cultivates
nationalist sentiment given that the US and the West make it easy for him with
hostile policies. While the goal in both Russia and Venezuela under Messiah
political figures is image cultivation to forge a broad public consensus, class
interests dominate as much in Venezuela where capitalists demand a dominant
voice in policy to the detriment of the rest of society, as in Russia where the
there are limitations to how far nationalism focused on external enemies can
carry the self-styled Messiah political leader.

As we have seen in the last century, Messiah politics in modern times can
entail a dictator imposed upon society, by heredity, military force, or
manipulation of the electoral system based on massive amounts of campaign
contributions from the wealthy as we have in the US and other countries.
Regardless of how a Messiah leader comes to power, the idea is to project the
image of indispensability to holding society together – forging political
consensus while projecting the image of serving the general welfare. Such has
been the case with a number of authoritarian rulers in many parts of the Middle
East and Asia. Identifying their regime with the national interest, thus with
the national welfare, these dictators can be ideologically right-wing or populist
left wing, ruling on behalf of the armed forces and police for the benefit of a
small segment in society, or ruling on behalf of a segment of the masses but in
reality benefiting a small group linked to supporting the "Savior
politician" who has no grassroots support.

Grassroots Movement's Challenge: the case of Italy

In the early 21st century, Italy seemed to be the birthplace of the
'anti-Messiah politics' movement. Grass-roots protest movements took place spread
across the Western World and the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East
initially appeared as grassroots movements that would end the era of dictators
for life cultivating a cult of personality and serving the rich at home and
foreign capital. In the age of NGO’s funded by governments and corporations,
there is enormous manipulation of grassroots movements, as we have seen in the
last ten years in a number of countries including those like Ukraine, Syria,
etc. Until the dust settles, it is very difficult to know the difference
between a genuine grassroots movement, and a well organized and government or
business-financed group of people manipulating dissidents on behalf of narrow
political and corporate interests.

It can be argued that grassroots politics has been around since the
creation of organized society and popularized since fifth century Athens as
Aristophanes explains in his satirical play "Lysistrata". In modern
European history, the earliest evidence of a mass grassroots movement came in
the Age of the Reformation with the “German Peasants’ War” (1524-1525) when
capitalism was making cost of living very high for the lower classes amid
greater wealth concentration. There were aspects of grassroots movements within
the French Revolution that the middle class led and dominated, and increasingly
in trade union organizing throughout the 19th century in Europe and
US.

The evidence of grassroots organizing in the 20th century can be
seen by the results of successful revolutions – Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba –
all involving Messiah-styled leaders to whom the masses looked to bring social
justice where was none. In the early 21st century, it appeared that Islamic
countries would set the example for the rest of the world to follow when it
came to ending Messiah politics and embracing grassroots movements. This proved
another illusion because of the manipulation of these movements by domestic and
foreign political and economic interests.

Italy presented itself as the country that could set the example of
grassroots anti-Messiah politics, a movement that has the potential of
spreading to other countries. Italy's Movement of National Liberation
launched in October 2009 by Beppe Grillo, evolved into the Five Star
Movement whose platform is anti-corruption, respect for the environment,
and genuine democracy rooted on people and not the elites. The five stars stand
for 1. environment, 2. water, 3. connectivity, 4. development, 5.
transportation. Political candidates qualifying for the Five Star Movement
needed to:
1. have no criminal record, 2. no political affiliation, 3. reside in the city
that they represent, 4. have not previously held office for the position they
are candidate, 5. refusal of government campaign funds.

One among dozens in Italy known for its dozens of national and regional
political parties, the Five Star Movement is close to what I call
the equivalent of the 'Cyber-Eco-Bourgeois' revolution in contemporary politics
(see my four-part essay on cyber-eco-bourgeoisie and the future of
revolutions). Using the web and blogging to raise consciousness attract
followers, Beppe Grillo started the 'vendetta' or vengeance protest movement in
2007, pointing out Italian politicians who were not only corrupt but criminal,
aiding and abetting murderers. Considering that organized crime has had a long
history of involvement in Italy's politics and business, and considering that
former Prime Minister Berlusconi, who owned a media empire, was in constant
trouble with the law for various violations including collusion with the mafia,
tax evasion, fraud, etc., it is understandable to see how corruption had a
corroding impact on Italian society and not because of the prime minister's
licentious lifestyle, but more because of the deteriorating socioeconomic
conditions.

Circumventing government-subsidized media that Berlusconi and other
millionaires control, the anti-Messiah grassroots movement petitioned for a Bill
of Popular Initiative to remove known criminals who were members of
parliament - criminals in politics also part of the Messiah political
mystique. Although Berlusconi was able to continue buying votes so he can
remain premier, more than two million people joined the anti-Messiah or V-Day
movement against a corrupt and undemocratic regime that controlled the
mainstream media and perpetuated messiah politics as embodied by "il
Cavaliere". The success was largely to blogging, internet, cell phone
and new technology that links people together and bypasses the mainstream media
representing the elites.

While the party is primarily popular in the north that historically has been
more progressive and more 'European' than the south where organized crime,
politics and business play a larger role, the 'Anti-Messiah' grassroots
movement, largely lower middle class with some working class elements, is in
its nascent stage. It remains to be seen if it takes off in the next few years
when Italy sinks deeper into recession and when the major political parties
fail to deliver a political solution that takes into account not just finance capital
and the markets, but the middle class and workers. It also remains to be seen
if Italy's anti-Messiah movement, largely middle class (part of what I call
cyber-eco-bourgeois) spreads to the rest of Europe and beyond. So far, the
movement has fallen into the same mold of “politics as usual” and lost its
luster as a genuine grassroots movement interested in promoting social justice.
Clearly, the institutionalization of a political party that becomes part of the
status quo entails co-optation and abandonment of its goals to serve the
masses.

Somewhat similar to Italy, Greece after 2010 immersed itself in Messiah
politics, seeking a savior either on the right or the left to lift the country
out of austerity and deep recession that is not unlike the Great Depression of
the 1930s. The majority opted for Alexis Tsipras of the center-left SYRIZA party
that came to office in January 2015 promising salvation for the working class
and the rapidly declining middle class. Five months later, the Greek Messiah Tsipras
proved that he is unable and perhaps unwilling to abandon the commitment of the
state faithfully serving domestic and foreign capital regardless of the cost to
the workers and middle class. The irony here is that a large segment of the
people will continue to embrace the Messiah politician regardless of the
absolute and total abandonment of pledge to support social justice. The only
thing that matters is the appearance of “salvation” from what actually may be
far worse – the unknown!

The Future of Messiah Politics and Grassroots Movements

The future of Messiah politics is safe, given that a segment of the population
wants to believe in morally-motivated idealistic 'Savior politicians' that
bring miracles to society on behalf of the people, at least appearing to do so
in a Machiavellian sense. In this respect, both Machiavelli and Hobbes were
correct regarding assumption about human nature and likely political behavior
under the social contract. Messiah politics will continue to exist because the
elites have the means to manipulate public opinion and co-opt just about everything
in society.

It can be argued that Messiah politics, like religion represents the human
soul (the spiritual craving of the human mind), and conditions will always
deteriorate to the degree that a well-motivated person or an opportunistic
demagogue will come along to promise deliverance from human suffering brought
on by societal institutions. In open societies, Messiah politics will continue
to thrive as long as there are powerful elites behind such political packaging,
promoting, and delivering the 'Savior politician' to the voters for their
approval, and as long as voters remain committed to worshiping power, at least
mesmerized by it, even if it is to the detriment of their interests that the
elites define for the masses.

At the same time, there will also be a rising trend toward grassroots movements
that has swept across Europe, US, Australia and Islamic nations, Russia, and Latin
America. Many politicians and analysts have argued that the deep recession of
1008-2011 resembled the Great Depression era in terms of the shock in the
magnitude of economic global contraction and socioeconomic downward mobility.
It is precisely such objective conditions that account for the rising
popularity of grassroots movements that may or may not evolve into political
parties, but will most definitely influence the political arena.

There are indications that ‘democracy’ as currently constituted is more
authoritarian than democratic, something proved by the large number of voters
who choose not to take part in voting process, to vote for small parties, or to
decry the entire institutional structure by simply engaging in protests, as is
the case with a segment of educated youth that does not have much hope for a
bright future under the existing institutions favoring a small segment of the
population benefiting from Messiah politics.

Anti-Messiah example may spread throughout Europe, Russia, US, Canada,
Australia, and beyond. Europe is especially vulnerable, as the continent sinks
deeper into a division between the rich northwest and the periphery across the
south and east. A rejection of Messiah politics in favor of grassroots
movements can continue assuming the following conditions:
a) One or more members of the eurozone leave the common currency, or if the EU
disintegrates.

b) The parliamentary system that theoretically claims to represent all
people continues to be undermined by the hegemonic economic system that caters
to a small percentage of the rich, and the poor-rich gap widens with unemployment
remaining in double-digits. The US is especially vulnerable because it is a
quasi-police state society with strong indications of ideological polarization
from a convergence of right wing elements adamantly opposed to maintaining a
liberal consensus on domestic issues and foreign affairs.
c) The mainstream major parties - varieties of center--left, center,
center-right, and right - fail to achieve political consensus and mobilize at
least half of the voters, and especially the declining and weaker middle class.
d) Varieties of rightwing extremism are on the rise, especially nationalism,
xenophobia, and anti-Islam sentiment translated into a stronger right wing
movement and/or platform of political parties.
e) There is a growing perception that society will become relatively stagnant
and there is a gap between the high expectations of the middle class and the
lack of fulfillment of the social contract by regimes that rest largely on
middle class votes for their support.
f) The contagion effect becomes a factor as one country's grassroots movement
will emulate the other.
g) There is continued erosion of the middle class 'Liberal-democratic'
consensus on which representative regimes are based, and a continued transfer
of public wealth toward corporate welfare at the expense of the rest of
society.

"A
gripping, passion-filled, and suspenseful tale of love, betrayal,
political and religious intrigue, this novel entices the reader’s
senses and intellect beyond conventions. Slaves to Gods and Demons
takes the reader through a roller coaster enthralling journey of
personal trials and triumphs of a family emerging vanquished and
destitute after World War II.

Narrated by a young boy, Morfeos, modeled after the Greco-Roman pagan
deity of sleep and dreams, the book reveals the soul of a people trying
to ascertain and assert their identity while rebuilding their lives and
recapturing the glory of a lost civilization.

Seeking liberation from restraints of time, social conventions, and
binding traditions, the deity of dreams provides the conformist and the
free-spirited characters in the novel with venues for redemption that
are mere paths toward illusions. Exploring the complexities of human
relationships shaped by priest and politician alike, the novel rests on
the central theme that life is invariably a series of illusions, some
of which are euphoric, most horrifying, all an integral part of daily
existence.

Striving for purpose amid life’s absurdities after the destruction of
western civilization in two global wars, the characters in Slaves to
Gods and Demons struggle between holding on to the glory and grandeur of
a pagan legacy and the Christian present shaped by contemporary
secular events in Western Civilization."